Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The second man with a gun would have had no idea that the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting. All he saw was the SUV running into, and knocking over, a person a few meters from him.

Had the second man known the driver was shot and injured, I fully agree with you that he was in the wrong. I just don't think he had enough information to be guilty of what you are accusing him of. From his perspective, without the full story, he could only see an SUV run into and knock someone over.

In short, this is why arming citizens in tense situations is a horrible idea. 

How do you know the second gunman had no idea the victim had been shot? And what do you think was his purpose In taking aim, with apparent intent to shoot, at a vehicle that was driving away from him?

 

And by the way, this discussion is not about gun control. That’s a distraction. It’s about a protest group stepping over the line into violence, lawlessness and mob behavior. It’s admittedly less severe here than what has been going on in the rest of the country, but unacceptable nonetheless. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

On 7/4/2020 at 2:21 AM, Calm said:

Is it against the law to point a gun?  Curious, don’t know. Hope so. 

 

76-10-506.  Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.

(1)

As used in this section: (a) "Dangerous weapon" means an item that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The following factors shall be used in determining whether an item, object, or thing is a dangerous weapon: (i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing; (ii) the character of the wound produced, if any; and (iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing was exhibited or used. (b) "Threatening manner" does not include: (i) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or (ii) informing another of the actor's possession of a deadly weapon to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(3)(a).

(2)

Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for an individual described in Section 76-10-503, an individual who, in the presence of two or more individuals, and not amounting to a violation of Section 76-5-103, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How do you know the second gunman had no idea the victim had been shot? And what do you think was his purpose In taking aim, with apparent intent to shoot, at a vehicle that was driving away from him?

How would he have any idea the driver had been shot? Even watching that video, there's no indication that anybody was shot or that anybody had a gun. 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And what do you think was his purpose In taking aim, with apparent intent to shoot, at a vehicle that was driving away from him?

Because from his perspective, the SUV was endangering the lives of those in its path. You can see two or three people standing not far from him cowering and withdrawing as if they feared they would also be hit. There is precedence for cars intentionally running over, and killing, protestors. It's not unthinkable that this man might have thought the SUV was going to injure someone and he was reacting. I watch that video and I am amazed nobody in the street was hurt.

We obviously have different perspectives on this, so not sure we'll get anywhere with this discussion.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

How would he have any idea the driver had been shot? Even watching that video, there's no indication that anybody was shot or that anybody had a gun. 

Because from his perspective, the SUV was endangering the lives of those in its path. You can see two or three people standing not far from him cowering and withdrawing as if they feared they would also be hit. There is precedence for cars intentionally running over, and killing, protestors. It's not unthinkable that this man might have thought the SUV was going to injure someone and he was reacting. I watch that video and I am amazed nobody in the street was hurt.

We obviously have different perspectives on this, so not sure we'll get anywhere with this discussion.

Manful effort, but gunshots are distinctive and not easily confused with other percussive sounds. It also strains credulity that the only two (hopefully) assailants who just happened to be armed and ready to brandish and, at least in the one instance, shoot, should be unaware of one another and what each was up to in so small a mob 

[Stargazer]

Nevermind

Edited July 5, 2020 by Stargazer

[smac97]

On 7/2/2020 at 6:02 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

I just sent the following email to Mayor Kaufusi and all members of the Provo City Council:

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a very eloquent and needed letter, Smac. I hope you will keep us apprised of any response you receive. And barring a responsible and reasoned accounting by the city for the deplorable actions of Monday night, I hope the residents of Provo will keep this in mind at the next municipal election. 

A quick update.  In addition to the email I sent to Mayor Kaufusi and the members of the Provo City Counsel, I have also sent GRAMA requests to Provo City and to the Provo City Police Department.

"GRAMA" stands for "Government Records Access Management Act."  It is a state statute, Utah Code Ann. sec. 63G-2-101 et seq., that imposes disclosure obligations on state, county and municipal governments in Utah.  The state even maintains an "Open Records Portal" to make it easier for people to submit GRAMA requests.

The two requests I sent are identical:

Quote

All communications from the Provo City Mayor's Office (or any agent or representative thereof) to the Provo City Police Department (or any member or employee thereof) pertaining to the protest which took place in downtown Provo on the evening of June 29, 2020. The records requested are limited to the time period of June 1, 2020 to June 29, 2020, inclusive.

I used the above-referenced Portal to submit the requests, and received confirmation emails back for each.  However, the email confirming the request for Provo City indicates that the "Records Officer" for Provo City is "Janene Weiss," who according to this article retired in 2017 and was replaced by Amanda Ercanbrack.  According to the Provo City website and this 2018 article, Amanda Ercanbrack is currently the "Provo City Recorder," so I prepared a separate GRAMA request (as a PDF) and emailed it to her.  However, the 2018 article states that "{w}hile Provo is working as quick as they can to put records online for the public, there are still so many requests coming in the recorder’s office has called back retired recorder Janene Weiss to help fill the requests," so perhaps the the Portal request will get to the right person after all.

I have very limited experience with submitting GRAMA requests.  Per the above 2018 article:

Quote

Requests for transparency and information concerning public documents are giving Provo gray hair over the increase in GRAMA requests.

The GRAMA, or Government Records Access Management Act, allows individuals to request a multitude of records that are public but not readily available.

According to Amanda Ercanbrack, Provo city recorder, residents can email their request through an online form, or in person.

“There are three kinds of records,” Ercanbrack said. “They are classified as: protected, controlled or private. Almost everything is public.”

She added that in many cases records have to be redacted for private or legal reasons. In some cases a complete file could be blacked out, but it still proves that there was a record.

"Almost everything is public."  I certainly hope that is the case for communications between the Mayor's Office and Provo PD.

I suspect that Provo PD received some sort of "stand down" order from the Mayor's Office prior to the June 29 protest (the violent one last Monday), hence the emails and GRAMA requests.  If that is what happened, the public - particularly Utah's electorate (who are considering Kaufusi for Lieutenant Governor on Hunstman's ticket) and the citizens of Provo - have a right to know.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/3/2020 at 8:22 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm assuming this second arrest is the guy seen pointing a gun at the SUV as it plows through the crowd and takes off. Makes me wonder where second amendment rights begin and end.
 

Coming out of lurk mode temporarily.  Going back into lurk mode after this, so don't necessarily expect a response.  Here's a clue.  You don't have a Second Amendment right to shoot at someone as he flees.

On 7/4/2020 at 12:28 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

If I’m the prosecutor, I have that photo blown up to poster size and displayed in the courtroom in full view of the jury throughout my examination. 

 

On 7/4/2020 at 1:29 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

To prove there was an armed citizen at the protests exercising his second amendment right to defend himself? ...

You can exercise your Second Amendment right to defend yourself from an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death.  However, once the person against whom you are purporting to "defend" yourself begins to flee, you no longer have a Second Amendment right.  Once the person begins to flee, the threat ceases.  Ergo, your right to "defend" yourself ends there.

On 7/4/2020 at 1:41 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Defend himself from what? An injured elderly motorist fleeing in his vehicle after being shot at close range because he objected to being unlawfully detained by an angry and menacing mob? 
 

By the way, I don’t see any indication in the photo of the motorist “plow[ing] through the crowd” as you inaccurately characterized it. More like the hapless victim has made his escape and is heading down the street while this second gunman tries to get one more round off. 
 

Like I say, it could make a powerful visual aid if the case gets to trial. 

 

On 7/4/2020 at 3:19 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

We can't assume that second man with a gun knew what was going on. ...

 

 

Sure we can.  By the time he aimed his gun at the rear of the vehicle, he already knew that the driver had made it through the crowd and, thus, posed no further threat to anyone else in the crowd.  Does he want to get a license number so that he can report this allegedly-dangerous motorist to law enforcement?  Okay.  He's welcome to do that.

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Nah, I don't want to make excuses for anybody.

Then stop making excuses for the guy pondering shooting somebody who, since he's fleeing, no longer is a threat.

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I 100% agree with you about the protestors being at fault here. Being an advocate for stronger gun control, I also fully fault the protestors carrying around guns where guns are not needed. I know others disagree but that's a discussion for another forum.

As I've said since I first learned of this incident, it could have been avoided entirely if police had said, "Did you get a permit, and, in the process of doing so, did we tell you we would  close the street to vehicular traffic?  No?  Then, by definition, any protest in the street cannot be a 'lawful protest.'  You want to protest?  That's fine.  Protest all you want!  But you cannot protest lawfully in the street."

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

My only issue is that people are defending the driver when it seems to me that he was escalating an already tense situation by pushing his car into the crowd.

It's nice to know that you would have sat there and let God-knows-who do God-knows-what to you, to your vehicle, and to your passenger.  Alas!  If we could only be as forbearing as you!

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I can understand why many feel he was in the right to do so, but I don't. The situation there was tense because the protestors, as reported to the police, felt drivers were intentionally trying to injure them and at least one had been injured and treated. We don't know who started what first and we can't make assumptions. In a situation like that, call the police and wait. For heaven's sake don't drive your car into the middle of all that.

Streets are for vehicles and for pedestrians who are obeying traffic signals, no matter how much you want to fault the guy who was driving his vehicle on the street for what happened.  Unless they received a permit and had the street closed, streets are not for protesters.

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm with Calm on this, we can't really say much about this until we know what happened the minute or two before the incident.

The most upsetting element to this story is that the police weren't actively mediating all this. The shooter, after firing two shots, went right back to protesting and even banged in a window of another car. Where were the police and why didn't they immediately go after the guy?

And just to be clear, (1) there was only one gunman who fired a shot, the second man with a gun was seemingly nothing more than a man with a gun reacting to a dangerous situation. (2) you say the driver was unarmed, are you assuming that?

 

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The second man with a gun would have had no idea that the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting.

You might be right that the second man with a gun had no idea why the motorist was fleeing ... but he did know the motorist was fleeing, which obviates any reasonable rationale for using his weapon, even if all he did was point it at someone.

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

All he saw was the SUV running into, and knocking over, a person a few meters from him.

And that might be a problem ... if the person he had so callously "knocked over" had a right to be in the street in the first place.

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Had the second man known the driver was shot and injured, I fully agree with you that he was in the wrong.

Nope, he didn't have to know that much to be in the wrong, all he had to know is that the motorist was fleeing ... and he already knew that ... because he saw the motorist fleeing!

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I just don't think he had enough information to be guilty of what you are accusing him of. 

Okay.  I'm sure police and prosecutors can sort it out.  They might not sort it out to your satisfaction, but I'm sure they can sort it out.

Back to Lurking!

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You don't have a Second Amendment right to shoot at someone as he flees.

He didn’t. 
 

His reaction to raise the gun might have been instinctual, but he chose not to fire it. We haven’t heard his side of the event to see if he has a decent explanation. 
 

There are lots of people out there pondering running over protestors who are not endangering them, but simply blocking traffic according to comments I read. There were a number of counter protestors dressed in war gear pondering shooting protestors based on who knows what ideas.  If anyone of the more strident commenters I read thinking about going down went, there is a good chance they were pondering shooting someone for the least offense from what I read. Likely the police presence and knowing their actions would be recorded suppressed some of their anticipated actions, I am guessing.
 

If pondering vigilante action while in possession of a deadly weapon is illegal, they should all be charged, correct?

Quote

Sure we can.  By the time he aimed his gun at the rear of the vehicle, he already knew that the driver had made it through the crowd and, thus, posed no further threat to anyone else in the crowd.

In previous occurrences, drivers swerved their cars to plow into pedestrians or protestors not in their direct path or even on sidewalks. Iirc, one driver backed up his car and then drove into the crowd again.  By your reasoning it would have been wrong to prepare to fire if he reversed again (as he did) by pointing a gun while he was backing up as if he kept backing up, no one would have been harmed, he would be perceived as fleeing the scene. If the man holding the gun up thought the driver was intentional in previously hitting someone, he might have assumed the driver might try it again. From the way a few of the protestors were talking, they strongly believed that drivers were intentionally hitting them with cars, trying to harm them. 
 

Quote

It's nice to know that you would have sat there and let God-knows-who do God-knows-what to you, to your vehicle, and to your passenger.  Alas!  If we could only be as forbearing as you!

We have no way of knowing at this point if protestors were doing anything besides standing in front of the cars or maybe walking between them before the driver began to move up to turn and possibly pushed against protestors in front of him. That may be what triggered them surrounding him and putting their hands on the car, etc. From what the video shows of protestors and other cars at that time and later, they are not swarming cars just sitting there waiting for road to clear. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Coming out of lurk mode temporarily.  Going back into lurk mode after this, so don't necessarily expect a response.  Here's a clue.  You don't have a Second Amendment right to shoot at someone as he flees.

 

You can exercise your Second Amendment right to defend yourself from an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death.  However, once the person against whom you are purporting to "defend" yourself begins to flee, you no longer have a Second Amendment right.  Once the person begins to flee, the threat ceases.  Ergo, your right to "defend" yourself ends there.

 

Sure we can.  By the time he aimed his gun at the rear of the vehicle, he already knew that the driver had made it through the crowd and, thus, posed no further threat to anyone else in the crowd.  Does he want to get a license number so that he can report this allegedly-dangerous motorist to law enforcement?  Okay.  He's welcome to do that.

Then stop making excuses for the guy pondering shooting somebody who, since he's fleeing, no longer is a threat.

As I've said since I first learned of this incident, it could have been avoided entirely if police had said, "Did you get a permit, and, in the process of doing so, did we tell you we would  close the street to vehicular traffic?  No?  Then, by definition, any protest in the street cannot be a 'lawful protest.'  You want to protest?  That's fine.  Protest all you want!  But you cannot protest lawfully in the street."

It's nice to know that you would have sat there and let God-knows-who do God-knows-what to you, to your vehicle, and to your passenger.  Alas!  If we could only be as forbearing as you!

Streets are for vehicles and for pedestrians who are obeying traffic signals, no matter how much you want to fault the guy who was driving his vehicle on the street for what happened.  Unless they received a permit and had the street closed, streets are not for protesters.

 

You might be right that the second man with a gun had no idea why the motorist was fleeing ... but he did know the motorist was fleeing, which obviates any reasonable rationale for using his weapon, even if all he did was point it at someone.

And that might be a problem ... if the person he had so callously "knocked over" had a right to be in the street in the first place.

Nope, he didn't have to know that much to be in the wrong, all he had to know is that the motorist was fleeing ... and he already knew that ... because he saw the motorist fleeing!

Okay.  I'm sure police and prosecutors can sort it out.  They might not sort it out to your satisfaction, but I'm sure they can sort it out.

Back to Lurking!

 

Well said, Kenngo. 
 

Bur what are you doing in “lurk mode”? Come out!

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

A quick update.  In addition to the email I sent to Mayor Kaufusi and the members of the Provo City Counsel, I have also sent GRAMA requests to Provo City and to the Provo City Police Department.

"GRAMA" stands for "Government Records Access Management Act."  It is a state statute, Utah Code Ann. sec. 63G-2-101 et seq., that imposes disclosure obligations on state, county and municipal governments in Utah.  The state even maintains an "Open Records Portal" to make it easier for people to submit GRAMA requests.

The two requests I sent are identical:

I used the above-referenced Portal to submit the requests, and received confirmation emails back for each.  However, the email confirming the request for Provo City indicates that the "Records Officer" for Provo City is "Janene Weiss," who according to this article retired in 2017 and was replaced by Amanda Ercanbrack.  According to the Provo City website and this 2018 article, Amanda Ercanbrack is currently the "Provo City Recorder," so I prepared a separate GRAMA request (as a PDF) and emailed it to her.  However, the 2018 article states that "{w}hile Provo is working as quick as they can to put records online for the public, there are still so many requests coming in the recorder’s office has called back retired recorder Janene Weiss to help fill the requests," so perhaps the the Portal request will get to the right person after all.

I have very limited experience with submitting GRAMA requests.  Per the above 2018 article:

"Almost everything is public."  I certainly hope that is the case for communications between the Mayor's Office and Provo PD.

I suspect that Provo PD received some sort of "stand down" order from the Mayor's Office prior to the June 29 protest (the violent one last Monday), hence the emails and GRAMA requests.  If that is what happened, the public - particularly Utah's electorate (who are considering Kaufusi for Lieutenant Governor on Hunstman's ticket) and the citizens of Provo - have a right to know.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I certainly agree with you that we as the public have a right to know about any “stand down” order from the mayor to the police. I would note, however, that the mayor in her YouTube message denied she issued any such order. I suppose if there is compliance with your GRAMA request, we will know whether or not the mayor is dissembling. 
 

Thanks, in any case, for doing this legwork. If you find out there was a stand-down order, I hope you will take it to the media. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

An update on the idiocy in Seattle:

Quote

Cops Re-Thinking Protest Rules After Car Driven by Black Man Kills White Seattle BLM Freeway Blocker
BY VICTORIA TAFT JUL 05, 2020 4:02 PM EST

One of the Seattle Black Lives Matter protesters struck by a car while blocking Interstate 5 early July 4th has died and her death has forced state cops to re-think their permissive policies allowing protesters to take over freeways.

Summer Taylor was blocking the freeway with a small group of Black Lives Matter demonstrators on the southbound lanes of I-5, the main artery through Seattle, about 1:30 a.m. Saturday.

A 27-year-old man was arrested. Police identified him as Dawit Kelete, and they say he was sober.
...
I can see the rock, paper, scissors imaginary discussion now:

Quote

OK, so idiots block the freeway.

Agreed, they’re idiots.

Yeah, but they were Black Lives Matter idiots blocking the freeway, so it must be OK.

Right.

But, a white chick was involved in the Black Lives Matter idiots blocking the freeway.

Sure, OK.

A man drove a car hitting a white woman in the Black Lives Matter protest.

Are you sure it was a white chick?

Yes, dude sent her to the hospital and she died.

What? Kill him!

But the white chick was killed.

And she was apparently killed by a black man, Dawit Kelete.

Wait, the driver was black?

Yeah, the driver was black who killed the white chick.

Free Dawit Kelete!

Wait, why did the cops let anyone go on the freeway?

Because they were Black Lives Matter.

Defund the police!

 

Here's where it gets really weird:

Quote

It turns out that the driver had to somehow get around a Washington State Highway Patrol blockade put up to protect the protesters.

NPR reports that investigators don’t know why Kelete jumped on the freeway in another spot.

Quote

The Washington State Patrol said Saturday that the driver of the white Jaguar sedan, a 27-year-old man, is in custody. At this point, officers have not offered a motive, though Capt. Ron Mead said officers believe the suspect was not impaired.

At a news conference early Saturday, Mead did not offer further details on how authorities believe the man bypassed a police closure to reach the victims. But he warned that the incident offers a stark lesson for protesters.

“My hope is, as a result of this tragedy, protesters will reconsider their desire to be on the interstate,” he said, “because I cannot guarantee their safety, plain and simple.” {emphasis added}

No, you read that right. The Washington State Patrol (WSP) set up barricades allowing the protesters to flood the freeways.
...
Hours after Taylor succumbed to her injuries, the WSP announced it was changing its policies to arrest people who block freeways instead of letting them protest there.

The admission that official Seattle had apparently allowed the protesters to take over the freeway was met with incredulity from law-abiding folks, including one who rightly observed that “Seattle looks like a bunch of children learning not to touch a hot stove.”
...
After shootings, murder – MURDER – rapes, assaults, graft, and other assorted crimes at the Black Lives Matter/antifa autonomous zone, CHOP, in Seattle, and then Washington State Patrol makes the political decision that these same people should be allowed to hand over a swath of an Interstate freeway … ?

It’s gobsmacking. It defies the law of common sense.

At the link there is a video clip of the car driven by Mr. Kelete striking Ms. Taylor and one other person.  It's pretty disturbing.

More information here.

The Seattle Police and their political masters were, it seems, complicit in the death of Ms. Taylor.  If a private citizen had set up barricades, and otherwise participated in the sequence of events culminating in Ms. Taylor's death, there would be charged pressed and time served.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I certainly agree with you that we as the public have a right to know about any “stand down” order from the mayor to the police. I would note, however, that the mayor in her YouTube message denied she issued any such order.

From her YouTube video:

"Contrary to some speculation, there was no order from me for the police to stand down last evening.  Police were following the same game plan as they have for the other protests.  It worked until last night, but again, last night was very different from past events.  We have been discussing our approach to future events.  First, we recognize the rights of people to peacefully assemble and protest.  Second, we call for mutual respect and listening while obeying the law.  We will plan to have a visible police presence when warranted.  People should call 911 with any information of illegal activity during a protest.  Social media posts and videos are great, but they're not a substitute for a crime in progress.  As a city, our role includes the following: Protect the rights and safety of all concerned.  Prevent crime.  And enforce the law when violations occur.  In all of this we ask people to keep in mind that protests are legal, riots are not.  And just as this is being recorded we have received word that a suspect has been arrested.  So in conclusion, what happened last night was unacceptable.  We are working overtime to ensure it won't happen again."

I'll be very curious as to A) whether there was any sort of "stand down" order, and B) who it was that formulated and/or approved the police department's "game plan" that apparently involved letting roving mobs to take over city streets.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

He didn’t. 
 

Rules (1) and (1)(a), respectively, of firearm safety: Never point a gun at something/someone you do not intend to shoot; and never shoot at something you do not intend to kill.

Quote

His reaction to raise the gun might have been instinctual, but he chose not to fire it. We haven’t heard his side of the event to see if he has a decent explanation. 
 

There are lots of people out there pondering running over protestors who are not endangering them, but simply blocking traffic according to comments I read. There were a number of counter protestors dressed in war gear pondering shooting protestors based on who knows what ideas.  If anyone of the more strident commenters I read thinking about going down went, there is a good chance they were pondering shooting someone for the least offense from what I read. Likely the police presence and knowing their actions would be recorded suppressed some of their anticipated actions, I am guessing.
 

If pondering vigilante action while in possession of a deadly weapon is illegal, they should all be charged, correct?

In previous occurrences, drivers swerved their cars to plow into pedestrians or protestors not in their direct path or even on sidewalks. Iirc, one driver backed up his car and then drove into the crowd again.  By your reasoning it would have been wrong to prepare to fire if he reversed again (as he did) by pointing a gun while he was backing up as if he kept backing up, no one would have been harmed, he would be perceived as fleeing the scene. If the man holding the gun up thought the driver was intentional in previously hitting someone, he might have assumed the driver might try it again. From the way a few of the protestors were talking, they strongly believed that drivers were intentionally hitting them with cars, trying to harm them. 
 

We have no way of knowing at this point if protestors were doing anything besides standing in front of the cars or maybe walking between them before the driver began to move up to turn and possibly pushed against protestors in front of him. That may be what triggered them surrounding him and putting their hands on the car, etc. From what the video shows of protestors and other cars at that time and later, they are not swarming cars just sitting there waiting for road to clear. 

Your whole argument is moot unless protesters had a right to be in the street, and if protesters had secured the right to be in the street, it would have been because the street had been closed to vehicular traffic.  If the street had been closed to vehicular traffic, there would have been no vehicles of which protesters could impede the progress.  If there had been no vehicles of which protesters could impede the progress, this incident would not have happened.

And we're not talking about other drivers who have threatened to run over protesters, or about other drivers who have run them over deliberately: we're talking about this one.  One has to have requisite intent to commit an assault, and the requisite intent has to be to do bodily injury.  If there is no intent to do bodily injury, there is no intent to commit assault.  It seems apparent to me that, rather than having the requisite intent to inflict bodily injury, the driver's intent, rather, was to flee what (having already been shot and wounded) he reasonably perceived to be the zone of danger.

I suppose anyone who wielded or who fired a weapon on this occasion can make contrary arguments.  They can even sue the driver if they're of a mind to do so.  But the real question, as I've said before, isn't "Can I sue?"  The real question is, "Will I win?", and I don't see any way that the answer to that question would be yes if those who fired or wielded weapons were to sue. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your whole argument is moot unless protesters had a right to be in the street,

I am not arguing if it was legal for the man to point a gun at the car, but if it was moral. That depends imo on what he believed was happening. 

He did not fire the gun. I don’t think people should automatically treat him as if he did or wanted to.   He may have, he may not have.  I think we know enough about the shooter to make that judgment, especially given his following actions of attacking another driver. This person though, we know nothing about as far as I am aware save those few seconds in the video. 
 

PS:  I am not sure what part of my post you are responding to. If you are not responding to the primary topic, please trim your he quote to the part you are. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

[From Mayor Kaufusi's statement]:

Second, we call for mutual respect and listening while obeying the law. 

And that would include staying out of the street unless one is crossing the street with the signal, right, Madam Mayor?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Rules (1) and (1)(a), respectively, of firearm safety: Never point a gun at something/someone you do not intend to shoot; and never shoot at something you do not intend to kill.

Your whole argument is moot unless protesters had a right to be in the street, and if protesters had secured the right to be in the street, it would have been because the street had been closed to vehicular traffic.  If the street had been closed to vehicular traffic, there would have been no vehicles of which protesters could impede the progress.  If there had been no vehicles of which protesters could impede the progress, this incident would not have happened.

And we're not talking about other drivers who have threatened to run over protesters, or about other drivers who have run them over deliberately: we're talking about this one.  One has to have requisite intent to commit an assault, and the requisite intent has to be to do bodily injury.  If there is no intent to do bodily injury, there is no intent to commit assault.  It seems apparent to me that, rather than having the requisite intent to inflict bodily injury, the driver's intent, rather, was to flee what (having already been shot and wounded) he reasonably perceived to be the zone of danger.

I suppose anyone who wielded or who fired a weapon on this occasion can make contrary arguments.  They can even sue the driver if they're of a mind to do so.  But the real question, as I've said before, isn't "Can I sue?"  The real question is, "Will I win?", and I don't see any way that the answer to that question would be yes if those who fired or wielded weapons were to sue. 

Kenngo, I hope at some point your earlier ambition to become an attorney comes to fruition. From where I sit, you seem to have the aptitude for it. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not arguing if it was legal for the man to point a gun at the car, but if it was moral. That depends imo on what he believed was happening. 

He did not fire the gun. I don’t think people should automatically treat him as if he did or wanted to.   He may have, he may not have.  I think we know enough about the shooter to make that judgment, especially given his following actions of attacking another driver. This person though, we know nothing about as far as I am aware save those few seconds in the video. 
 

If he had no intent to shoot, why do you suppose he was taking aim? To scare away an elderly, wounded driver already fleeing for his life and bound for the hospital? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From her YouTube video:

"Contrary to some speculation, there was no order from me for the police to stand down last evening.  Police were following the same game plan as they have for the other protests.  It worked until last night, but again, last night was very different from past events.  We have been discussing our approach to future events.  First, we recognize the rights of people to peacefully assemble and protest.  Second, we call for mutual respect and listening while obeying the law.  We will plan to have a visible police presence when warranted.  People should call 911 with any information of illegal activity during a protest.  Social media posts and videos are great, but they're not a substitute for a crime in progress.  As a city, our role includes the following: Protect the rights and safety of all concerned.  Prevent crime.  And enforce the law when violations occur.  In all of this we ask people to keep in mind that protests are legal, riots are not.  And just as this is being recorded we have received word that a suspect has been arrested.  So in conclusion, what happened last night was unacceptable.  We are working overtime to ensure it won't happen again."

I'll be very curious as to A) whether there was any sort of "stand down" order, and B) who it was that formulated and/or approved the police department's "game plan" that apparently involved letting roving mobs to take over city streets.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good point. Whether the mayor or someone else issued a stand-down order, it had to have come from somewhere, as that is what the police were doing on Monday night in failing to enforce laws. 
 

P.S.  If police were following the same “game plan” as they had in previous incidents, and those incidents included innocent motorists getting harassed by mobs illegally blocking traffic, I don’t think the “game plan” was working too well. 
 

Do keep us posted on your GRAMA request. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

How would he have any idea the driver had been shot? Even watching that video, there's no indication that anybody was shot or that anybody had a gun. 

Because from his perspective, the SUV was endangering the lives of those in its path. You can see two or three people standing not far from him cowering and withdrawing as if they feared they would also be hit. There is precedence for cars intentionally running over, and killing, protestors. It's not unthinkable that this man might have thought the SUV was going to injure someone and he was reacting. I watch that video and I am amazed nobody in the street was hurt.

We obviously have different perspectives on this, so not sure we'll get anywhere with this discussion.

Part of the problem may be that Utah does not require actual training in the use of firearms in order to obtain a concealed carry permit.  Those who have been in the military or in law enforcement usually have good gun safety skills, and realize that shooting in the situation described in downtown Provo is a threat to bystanders, and cannot be justified by any rational or legal consideration.  People need to go to jail.

Peaceful assembly does not include blocking roadways or attacking and surrounding vehicles.  Nor is it proper for people from out of town to come and disturb the peace of an otherwise nice community.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he had no intent to shoot, why do you suppose he was taking aim? To scare away an elderly, wounded driver already fleeing for his life and bound for the hospital? 

Do cops always intend to shoot if they draw their guns or are they preparing to be ready just in case in many cases?

Were the counterprotestors intending to shoot when their guns were in full, open display?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good point. Whether the mayor or someone else issued a stand-down order, it had to have come from somewhere, as that is what the police were doing on Monday night in failing to enforce laws. 

I'm just glad that I wasn't there.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do cops always intend to shoot if they draw their guns or are they preparing to be ready just in case in many cases?

Were the counterprotestors intending to shoot when their guns were in full, open display?

"Utah allows for open carry of unloaded firearms without a concealed firearm permit. ... With a permit, a person may carry a firearm with a loaded chamber either openly or concealed. Utah will honor a permit issued by any state or county."

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Peaceful assembly does not include blocking roadways or attacking and surrounding vehicles.  Nor is it proper for people from out of town to come and disturb the peace of an otherwise nice community.

There's been a lot of talk here about how terrible it is when protestors block roads (multiple posters, multiple posts). My reply here is not about mob violence, the shooting, or the Provo incident in particular. It is about the idea that protestors blocking a road is terrible and out to be stopped. It is about general principles when it comes to protests.

The police department in my city rerouted traffic when the BLM protestors stepped off the sidewalk and blocked an intersection for 9 minutes (in honor of George Floyd). That seemed a reasonable thing to do. Yes, they could have arrested all the protesters, but what would that have really accomplished? Can't we accept a slight inconvenience as drivers? (again, I'm not talking about the Provo incident -- I'm talking about the general idea that protestors shouldn't block roads)

There have also been posts about how protestors have to have a permit, have to follow the permit, etc. For those who have argued such, is there ever room for civil disobedience (non-violent, of course)? Do all protests have to be 100% legal? What about the civil rights movement? What about Gandhi? 

Robert, your last statement got to me a little. I know the outsiders that came to Provo were violent, and I absolutely agree that violence doesn't have a place at a protest. But the way you phrased it, speaking generally instead of specifically, sounded a little too much like the "outside agitators" claim. Put together with the blocking roadways idea, and the "have to have a permit" claims, it made me think of the Selma to Montgomery marches. MLK came from out-of-town and the marches definitely blocked the roadways. Governor George Wallace specifically cited traffic concerns as one of the reasons why he wouldn't let the march happen. Courts issued injunctions barring the march. The march happened anyway. Should it have? Should those seeking the right to vote not invited MLK? Not blocked the highway? Not marched because the law said they couldn't? Or were they justified?

Again, I'm talking about general principles here, and I'm questioning those whose general principles seem to be no blocking roads, no civil disobedience, no protest without permit, and no outsiders at a protest.

[MiserereNobis]

Here's Ann Feeney singing her song "Have You Been to Jail for Justice" at the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, where there was lots of acts of non-violent civil disobedience and an incredible harsh police response:

 

 

Was it Cesar Chavez? Maybe it was Dorothy Day
Some will say Dr. King or Gandhi set them on their way
No matter who your mentors are it's pretty plain to see
That, if you've been to jail for justice, you're in good company

 

Have you been to jail for justice? I want to shake your hand
Cause sitting in and lyin' down are ways to take a stand
Have you sung a song for freedom? or marched that picket line?
Have you been to jail for justice? Then you're a friend of mine

 

You law abiding citizens, come listen to this song
Laws were made by people, and people can be wrong
Once unions were against the law, but slavery was fine
Women were denied the vote and children worked the mine
The more you study history the less you can deny it
A rotten law stays on the books til folks like us defy it

 

 

ETA: there is no police brutality in the short clip above, but if you want to get a bigger picture of what non-violent civil disobedients had to endure, you can search on YouTube for "This is What Democracy Looks Like" 

Edited July 5, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do cops always intend to shoot if they draw their guns or are they preparing to be ready just in case in many cases?

Were the counterprotestors intending to shoot when their guns were in full, open display?

Which of the counter protesters were taking aim at people? If that happened, I guess I missed hearing about it. 
 

And I don’t think even police these days are permitted to shoot at an individual who is fleeing and is not posing any conceivable threat to anyone. So I can’t conceive that a well-trained and conscientious cop would have his firearm drawn in that circumstance. There would be no point to it. 
 

I notice you ignored my question: If the suspect had no intent to shoot, why do you suppose he was taking aim?